It (2017)

[Chaotic]

"Its summer, we're supposed to be having fun."

I felt like Bill when that was said for like the 20th time.

[DanTheMan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ubwGb-vLA0

[Chaotic]

The leader, the sick one, the bookworm, the kid from Stranger Things...in glasses.

[Markgway]

My take:

Big screen adaptation of Stephen King's novel proved to be the sleeper hit of 2017. Not entirely sure why though; as it's really not that good. If you find CGI effects scary you might be freaked out by this, but the story is a jumbled, random, heavy-handed mess. A near-heartless, rambling Elm Street-like fantasy horror where every adult character is bad, for no apparent reason, and the demonic clown character of 'Pennywise' (the main villain) goes undefined, despite a 135 min run time. Who is he? What is he? Where does he come from? All questions the filmmakers couldn't be bothered to address - at least we know everything there is to know about Freddy Krueger and his M.O. Bill Skarsgard replaces Tim Curry behind the makeup, but isn't given much to do without special effects. Perhaps most crucially, the child (well, early teen) characters are a very mixed bag, and I can't say I ever empathised with them. Where warmth and innocence was needed, we instead get sarcasm and smut (even in the late 80s did 13-year-olds swear that much?). I've never read the novel, and don't remember the mini-series well enough to compare (except to say the second part was naff - but you'll have to wait until 2019 for the film of that).

[LegacyCosts]

Originally Posted by Markgway

My take:

Big screen adaptation of Stephen King's novel proved to be the sleeper hit of 2017. Not entirely sure why though; as it's really not that good. If you find CGI effects scary you might be freaked out by this, but the story is a jumbled, random, heavy-handed mess. A near-heartless, rambling Elm Street-like fantasy horror where every adult character is bad, for no apparent reason, and the demonic clown character of 'Pennywise' (the main villain) goes undefined, despite a 135 min run time. Who is he? What is he? Where does he come from? All questions the filmmakers couldn't be bothered to address - at least we know everything there is to know about Freddy Krueger and his M.O. Bill Skarsgard replaces Tim Curry behind the makeup, but isn't given much to do without special effects. Perhaps most crucially, the child (well, early teen) characters are a very mixed bag, and I can't say I ever empathised with them. Where warmth and innocence was needed, we instead get sarcasm and smut (even in the late 80s did 13-year-olds swear that much?). I've never read the novel, and don't remember the mini-series well enough to compare (except to say the second part was naff - but you'll have to wait until 2019 for the film of that).

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by Markgway

My take:

Big screen adaptation of Stephen King's novel proved to be the sleeper hit of 2017. Not entirely sure why though; as it's really not that good. If you find CGI effects scary you might be freaked out by this, but the story is a jumbled, random, heavy-handed mess. A near-heartless, rambling Elm Street-like fantasy horror where every adult character is bad, for no apparent reason, and the demonic clown character of 'Pennywise' (the main villain) goes undefined, despite a 135 min run time. Who is he? What is he? Where does he come from? All questions the filmmakers couldn't be bothered to address - at least we know everything there is to know about Freddy Krueger and his M.O. Bill Skarsgard replaces Tim Curry behind the makeup, but isn't given much to do without special effects. Perhaps most crucially, the child (well, early teen) characters are a very mixed bag, and I can't say I ever empathised with them. Where warmth and innocence was needed, we instead get sarcasm and smut (even in the late 80s did 13-year-olds swear that much?). I've never read the novel, and don't remember the mini-series well enough to compare (except to say the second part was naff - but you'll have to wait until 2019 for the film of that).

Couldn't disagree more, to me IT was the best horror film I've seen since the Descent.

[LegacyCosts]

Originally Posted by Markgway

My take:

Big screen adaptation of Stephen King's novel proved to be the sleeper hit of 2017. Not entirely sure why though; as it's really not that good. If you find CGI effects scary you might be freaked out by this, but the story is a jumbled, random, heavy-handed mess. A near-heartless, rambling Elm Street-like fantasy horror where every adult character is bad, for no apparent reason, and the demonic clown character of 'Pennywise' (the main villain) goes undefined, despite a 135 min run time. Who is he? What is he? Where does he come from? All questions the filmmakers couldn't be bothered to address - at least we know everything there is to know about Freddy Krueger and his M.O. Bill Skarsgard replaces Tim Curry behind the makeup, but isn't given much to do without special effects. Perhaps most crucially, the child (well, early teen) characters are a very mixed bag, and I can't say I ever empathised with them. Where warmth and innocence was needed, we instead get sarcasm and smut (even in the late 80s did 13-year-olds swear that much?). I've never read the novel, and don't remember the mini-series well enough to compare (except to say the second part was naff - but you'll have to wait until 2019 for the film of that).

Gif aside it sounds like your understanding of the material is skewed. "It" is the reflection of what is wrong with these children's lives. Their fears, the abuse they suffer and the bullying are manifested as this evil creature. I take it as their power comes from friendship in faith in each other that is once again will be explored when they're older in part 2, hopefully much more effectively than the mini series. Kids are sarcastic smutty jerks, I know I was with my friends so I'm not sure I can agree with you there. More exposition is not needed on what IT/Pennywise actually is as I think it would tarnish the story.

Anyway I'm not a cgi guy either but compared to most of the horror genre's modern output this is the original Nightmare on Elm street in terms of quality.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by LegacyCosts

Gif aside it sounds like your understanding of the material is skewed. "It" is the reflection of what is wrong with these children's lives. Their fears, the abuse they suffer and the bullying are manifested as this evil creature. I take it as their power comes from friendship in faith in each other that is once again will be explored when they're older in part 2, hopefully much more effectively than the mini series. Kids are sarcastic smutty jerks, I know I was with my friends so I'm not sure I can agree with you there. More exposition is not needed on what IT actually is as I think it would tarnish the story.

Anyway I'm not a cgi guy either but compared to most of the horror genre's modern output this is the original Nightmare on Elm street in terms of quality.

I trust that when we see Pennywise again it will be in a sequel that actually feels like the film this one deserved as a follow-up.

[LegacyCosts]

Originally Posted by Batman1980

I trust that when we see Pennywise again it will be in a sequel that actually feels like the film this one deserved as a follow-up.

It's a tall order to replace a likable cast of kids with a good story and follow a group of older adults around. The miniseries is great until they get old.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by LegacyCosts

It's a tall order to replace a likable cast of kids with a good story and follow a group of older adults around. The miniseries is great until they get old.

I'm hoping creative license and giving Skarsgard a perfect complementary cast will elevate what seems to be lacking source material.

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by Batman1980

I'm hoping creative license and giving Skarsgard a perfect complementary cast will elevate what seems to be lacking source material.

A lot of people keep saying that, but I've read the book many times, and to me the last part of the book is as good or better than the first part. As the book goes along, it cuts back and forth between them as kids and adults, but may spend several chapters together with each one. Nearer to the end of the book, it starts to gradually cut back and forth faster and faster until you have the adult version literally finishing the sentence from the kid version and vise versa. It's actually pretty awesome and a unique story telling device. It's almost a bit like they're all having déjà vu, as if they've been there before, because they have, they just forgot.

[Chaotic]

It should be Skarsgard's show this time.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by LegacyCosts

Gif aside it sounds like your understanding of the material is skewed. "It" is the reflection of what is wrong with these children's lives. Their fears, the abuse they suffer and the bullying are manifested as this evil creature.

I understood the basic themes. I just felt that the screenplay didn't do a good enough job relaying them. I found it less a coherent story and more a series of scares pasted together following a rough outline and a monster who is sometimes a clown, but not a clown, even though only one of them professes to be sacred of clowns. I really wanted to like 'IT' as I'm into 80s nostalgia (my era) but to me it was an effects heavy mess. Just my opinion.

[LegacyCosts]

Originally Posted by Markgway

I understood the basic themes. I just felt that the screenplay didn't do a good enough job relaying them. I found it less a coherent story and more a series of scares pasted together following a rough outline and a monster who is sometimes a clown, but not a clown, even though only one of them professes to be sacred of clowns. I really wanted to like 'IT' as I'm into 80s nostalgia (my era) but to me it was an effects heavy mess. Just my opinion.

Well you're asking who pennywise is, what he is and where he comes from in your review. I don't think you'd ask these questions if you understood the character. I'm not trying to be rude, your criticisms are just strange. The adult characters are all bad/abusive because the children are supposed to be outcasts with limited support systems.

Sorry it didn't work for you.

[chip75]

My first viewing … I haven’t seen the mini-series in a few years but I’ve recently finished the book. I must say I was excited to see Chapter One, I loved the trailers, but the movie left me slightly disappointed.

I missed the bonding between the Losers’ Club, we had the bit were they rescue Mike and help Ben, but I missed the smaller moments, like the dam teambuilding, the cinema visit or the clubhouse. Some of the character changes didn’t sit well either. Mike doesn’t seem to have anything to do anymore. I know Ben spent time at the library, but it almost seems that they merged Mike’s character into his. We didn’t really see any of Beverly’s future in fashion either. She plays a keyboard in her room, I wonder if her future will be music? Bill creates a replica of the sewers in his garage, so he seems to have some of Ben’s architectural flare. Eddie was nicely one. Richie was a bit of a disappointment, a lot of his humour was missing. Stanley was foreshadowed well. Henry Bowers was suitably psychotic, I’m not sure why the cut the scene where he sits in the car with his murdered friends. He didn’t get kicked in the balls enough; it should have been a running joke.

I think they missed a trick with Its manifestations, the 1980s had such great iconic characters that could have been used in a few scenes. It would have been neat to see Freddy, Jason or even Beetlejuice show up! I understand why they chose the forms they did, but I think they could have been more playful in the beginning.

Pennywise was okay, we got slight glimpses of is true form, but the way It chased the kids a short distance in spurts was a bit underwhelming. Most of the effects were very well done. The score and production design were fantastic.

Looking forward to Chapter Two, I’ll miss the kids, as they were excellent. I'm not sure what I'd rate the film, it's tough to compare it to the huge novel. I would have loved a bit more time with the kids (a three hour cut wouldn't hurt this one bit), as I missed the little things that bonded the Losers' Club together.

I know I said I was disappointed, but I think it was because the book was so fresh in my mind. I'd still rate this very highly.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by chip75

My first viewing … I haven’t seen the mini-series in a few years but I’ve recently finished the book. I must say I was excited to see Chapter One, I loved the trailers, but the movie left me slightly disappointed.

I missed the bonding between the Losers’ Club, we had the bit were they rescue Mike and help Ben, but I missed the smaller moments, like the dam teambuilding, the cinema visit or the clubhouse. Some of the character changes didn’t sit well either. Mike doesn’t seem to have anything to do anymore. I know Ben spent time at the library, but it almost seems that they merged Mike’s character into his. We didn’t really see any of Beverly’s future in fashion either. She plays a keyboard in her room, I wonder if her future will be music? Bill creates a replica of the sewers in his garage, so he seems to have some of Ben’s architectural flare. Eddie was nicely one. Richie was a bit of a disappointment, a lot of his humour was missing. Stanley was foreshadowed well. Henry Bowers was suitably psychotic, I’m not sure why the cut the scene where he sits in the car with his murdered friends. He didn’t get kicked in the balls enough; it should have been a running joke.

I think they missed a trick with Its manifestations, the 1980s had such great iconic characters that could have been used in a few scenes. It would have been neat to see Freddy, Jason or even Beetlejuice show up! I understand why they chose the forms they did, but I think they could have been more playful in the beginning.

Pennywise was okay, we got slight glimpses of is true form, but the way It chased the kids a short distance in spurts was a bit underwhelming. Most of the effects were very well done. The score and production design were fantastic.

Looking forward to Chapter Two, I’ll miss the kids, as they were excellent. I'm not sure what I'd rate the film, it's tough to compare it to the huge novel. I would have loved a bit more time with the kids (a three hour cut wouldn't hurt this one bit), as I missed the little things that bonded the Losers' Club together.

I know I said I was disappointed, but I think it was because the book was so fresh in my mind. I'd still rate this very highly.

You know there's a director cut coming, right? Bet it'll have a lot of the stuff you wanted to see.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Batman1980

You know there's a director cut coming, right? Bet it'll have a lot of the stuff you wanted to see.

I didn't know. That's great news. Hopefully it's a lot more than the deleted scenes (that are on the Blu-ray) added in.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by chip75

I didn't know. That's great news. Hopefully it's a lot more than the deleted scenes (that are on the Blu-ray) added in.

Yeah we're all hoping it'll flesh out Derry and the Losers more than what we got. Kinda odd we want more, guessing in part because most horror seems to be so short.

[Gieferg]

I've neither read the book nor watch previous adaptation. Also, not a fan of King or horror genre in general. Tried this one because of good reviews, I usually skip horror movies or fall asleep when I try to watch them. That being said...

Some likeable, interesting characters, very nice cinematography, atmosphere and... weak and chaotic horror plot which leads basically to nowhere. Too much SCARRRRY!!! moments that are not scary at all, too much ideas without any pay-off. Not impressed. At all. Frankly, I'd prefer a "Losers Club" movie without Pennywise. That could've been better.

At least I was able to see the whole thing and didn't fall asleep. Quite an accomplishment for a horror movie.
5/10

[Lepidopterous]

I did not know IT's cinematography was done by Chung-hoon Chung, who did Oldboy (2003), Stoker, and The Handmaiden. No wonder it looked gorgeous.